General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKerry, Panetta, ex-CIA officials tell court Trump order will endanger troops in the field
Former secretaries of state John F. Kerry and Madeleine Albright, along with Leon Panetta and other former top national security officials, entered the fray over President Trumps travel ban early Monday with an unusual declaration stating that it undermines national security and will endanger U.S. troops in the field.
The six-page joint declaration was addressed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in support of the temporary order blocking implementation of Trumps ban on entry for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The executive order was blocked by a U.S. district court judge, prompting the government to appeal in what is becoming an unprecedented battle over executive power.
The declaration came as the state of Washington, which initially sought the restraining order, formally responded to the administrations appeal. The governments brief is due later Monday.
While the declaration by the officials is not part of the formal briefing in the case and judges have no obligation to read it, it is clearly meant to counter the governments argument that continuing to block Trumps executive action will cause great harm to the nations security. It perhaps also has the public relations function of responding to Trumps Twitter claim that Judge James L. Robart was putting the country in such peril and that he and the court system should be blamed if something happens.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/06/kerry-panetta-ex-cia-officials-tell-court-trump-order-will-endanger-troops-in-the-field/?tid=pm_national_pop&utm_term=.6811b627605f
heather blossom
(174 posts)They know what the consequences are of a dimwitted race baiting order like this is. John Kerry will go down in history as one of our great Secretaries of State.
Jim__
(14,092 posts)From wikipedia:
Others argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits. This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases.[7][8]
However, through 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court's rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court were affirmed only 20% of the time and reversed and or vacated 80% of the time; a rate substantially higher than the median reversal rate of 68.29% for the same period.[9]
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)threats of false imprisonment
Ilsa
(61,710 posts)They did. It was awful. Injuries and deaths from rocket-propelled grenades, etc.